Re: [Geopriv] Adding GPS location to IPv6 header

["Carl Reed" <[e-mail]>]

Hi -

I asked this question before and did not get a response (maybe because my 
question was off base).

There is a location extension for DHCP. This extension is consistent with 
other location object definitions used in the IETF as well as what is used 
and specified in various ISO, OGC, OASIS and other standards.

Why not use the DHCP location extension? Why define yet another location 
element for IPv6?

Thanks

Carl Reed, PhD
CTO
OGC


-----Original Message----- 
From: Richard L. Barnes
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:49 AM
To: Ammar Salih
Cc: [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; 'Fred Baker (fred)'
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Adding GPS location to IPv6 header

Hi Ammar,

I have read your draft.  From what I can tell, it is just a summary of the 
arguments in this thread.  It would be more helpful if you could add a level 
of technical detail to help people understand.  I would want to see at 
least:
1. The format of the IPv6 option
2. Where it is to be added to / removed from a packet
3. Requirements for routers / hosts
4. Privacy considerations
5. Security considerations

Also, it will be slightly easier to read if you use some of the standard 
tools for authoring Internet drafts.  See, for example:
<http://tools.ietf.org/>

Technically speaking, I'm not yet convinced that this option is very useful, 
but it does not seem to me that this option would be harmful to the network, 
only possibly the privacy of users.  In specifying the privacy mechanisms in 
your detailed description, I would suggest that you make this mechanism 
"opt-in" by end hosts.  For example, you could have an all-zero geolocation 
option indicate that a host wishes to disclose its location, but doesn't 
know its geolocation to put in the option; then you could require that a 
router SHOULD NOT populate this option unless an all-zero geolocation option 
is already present (indicating consent).

It would also be helpful to clarify how this option would relate to other 
similar options, such as the line identifier option:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6788>

Hope this helps,
--Richard




On Nov 18, 2012, at 9:51 AM, Ammar Salih <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Fred,
>
>
> You may certainly file an internet draft with your ideas. You will want to 
> read about what an Internet Draft is and how to file one. 
> http://www.ietf.org/id-info/
>
> Filing an Internet Draft does not imply consensus around the 
> specification, and you will need to build that consensus. You will want to 
> make your case, and I would suggest starting on the geopriv mailing list, 
> although the case will eventually have to be made to 6man. 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/charter/.
>
> Appreciate it, the first draft has been submitted already 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-add-location-to-ipv6-header/?include_text=1
>
>
> One consideration you should take in view is that the IPv6 header is not 
> encrypted, so information found in it is globally readable. If there is 
> ever a case in which your GPS location is needed by the application but 
> may need to be guarded for privacy reasons, you will want to put it in the 
> application layer (above the transport, guarded by IPsec or TLS), not the 
> network layer.
>
> I have suggested few solutions to cover the privacy concern and also why I 
> am suggesting the network layer instead of the application layer, you 
> could find them included in the internet draft above.
>
>
> I would expect that 6man might tell you that the IPv6 header has one 
> primary purpose, which is to conduct a datagram from the sender's system 
> to the intended receiver's system; if the data doesn't help achieve that, 
> it's probably in the wrong header.
>
> I agree, also from OSI perspective, I would think twice before including 
> location field into network layer, then again, it’s the only layer that 
> makes the field useable to routers.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ammar
>
>
>
> From: Fred Baker (fred) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 6:05 AM
> To: Ammar Salih
> Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Adding GPS location to IPv6 header
>
> You may certainly file an internet draft with your ideas. You will want to 
> read about what an Internet Draft is and how to file one. 
> http://www.ietf.org/id-info/
>
> Filing an Internet Draft does not imply consensus around the 
> specification, and you will need to build that consensus. You will want to 
> make your case, and I would suggest starting on the geopriv mailing list, 
> although the case will eventually have to be made to 6man. 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/charter/.
>
> One consideration you should take in view is that the IPv6 header is not 
> encrypted, so information found in it is globally readable. If there is 
> ever a case in which your GPS location is needed by the application but 
> may need to be guarded for privacy reasons, you will want to put it in the 
> application layer (above the transport, guarded by IPsec or TLS), not the 
> network layer. In fact, I would expect that 6man might tell you that the 
> IPv6 header has one primary purpose, which is to conduct a datagram from 
> the sender's system to the intended receiver's system; if the data doesn't 
> help achieve that, it's probably in the wrong header.
>
> On Nov 10, 2012, at 7:05 AM, Ammar Salih wrote:
>
>
> Hello IETF, based on my discussions with both ipv6 and geopriv teams, I’ve 
> written the below document to summarize few ideas.
>
> Is it possible to publish this on IETF website? even if it will not be 
> implemented now, at least for documentation and requesting feedback from 
> the community.
>
>
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Ammar
>
>
>
>
>
> Ammar J. Salih
> Baghdad, Iraq
> October 30, 2012
> Title: IP-LOC
>
>
>
> Adding GPS location to IPv6 header
>
> Abstract:
> =========
>
>    This document describes IP-LOC, an extension to IPv6 header which 
> suggests adding GPS coordinates, as the current method of determining the 
> location of IP traffic is through IP address registration database, which 
> is not very accurate as it depends on how the ISP registers its IP 
> subnets, that is normally done in a country/city format.
>
> It also assumes that in the future, GPS capability will be added to the 
> router itself (just like smart phones) and packet marking and 
> classification based on geo-location will be required.
>
> QoS, firewall and routing based on geo-location will be highly required 
> when mobile routers move from one geo-location to another which has 
> different policy.
>
>
>
>
>
> Benefits of adding GPS location to IPv6 header (IP-LOC)
> =======================================================
>
>
> Web Services: getting more accurate locations will enhance many services 
> provided by the web, like targeted commercials (for example, I can get Ads 
> regarding restaurants available in my neighborhoods instead of all 
> restaurants in the city), another good example would be webpage’s 
> language, my language will be detected more accurately based on my area 
> rather than my country, as there are many countries with more than one 
> popular language, not mentioning that many ip registrations does not even 
> reflect the traffic originating country.
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Information accuracy and control: Nowadays, locations are assigned to IP 
> addresses without user awareness or control, every time a user performs 
> ip-lookup query the response would be different based on how the ISP has 
> registered this IP subnet, IP-LOC suggests making locations more accurate 
> and controllable through OS and network devices, exactly like IP addresses 
> (user can change his/her IP address, but router can also modify the header 
> information - in case it's required).
>
> -------------------------------
>
>
> Routing: Policy based routing, based on geo-location, like routing 
> predefined traffic through certain server or path, for different purposes 
> (security, manageability, serviceability like choosing language, or 
> routing traffic to specific cashing or proxy server based on country .. 
> etc)
>
> -------------------------------
>
>
> Copyright law: It happens when certain media/web content is not allowed in 
> certain countries due to copyright law, the current method of determining 
> locations is not accurate at all, on other hand, If layer-7 application to 
> be used then the user might be able to manipulate the location field, in 
> this case (if it’s required in future) the ISP can tag traffic with 
> country/city more accurately as traffic passes through ISP’s boarder 
> routers.
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Maps, navigation, emergency calls and many other services will be also 
> enhanced with accurate locations.
>
>
>
>
>
> CURRENT ARGUMENTS AGAINST THIS IDEA:
> ========================================
>
> “Adding GPS position to every IPv6 header would add a lot of overhead”
>
> Response: It does not have to be in every IPv6 header, only when there is 
> location update, also the host should have the option of not to send 
> location updates.
>
> -------------------------------
>
> “What about privacy?”
>
> Response: User should have the option of not sending location updates. 
> User should also have the ability to set location to all zeros, in this 
> case no router will modify the location field and user loses the 
> location-based services.
>
> If it’s router-to-router link, then no need to be worried about privacy as 
> such information usually configured on a separate network.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> “a good alternative would be to create application layer protocols that 
> could request and send GPS positions”
>
> Response: the layer-7 location request will not be detected by layer-3 
> devices (Routers), I am assuming that in the future, GPS capability will 
> be added to the router itself (just like smart phones), features like 
> packet marking and classification based on geo-location will be required 
> to enforce the new geo-location policies.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> “For location-based routing protocols: Why would you want this? 
> Geographical location isn't actually that important a metric for routing; 
> what you care about there is *topological* location, how far I am away 
> from you in terms of hops or latency”
>
> Response: For shortest path maybe yes, hops or latency is important, not 
> for policy-based routing, in our case you might want to do location-based 
> routing, like, routing traffic coming from French speaking users (in 
> multi-language country like Canada) to google.fr
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> “For geolocation-based ACLs: you have the problem that if the geolocation 
> is attached by the endpoint, then it can't be trusted, since the endpoint 
> would lie to get past the ACL.  If it's attached by a router, the ACL 
> needs to have proof that the router attached it (and not the endpoint), 
> which means that you would need a signed geolocation header”
>
> Response: You could have the router modify the location field anyways, 
> just like L3 QoS fields, if you don't trust the host, so no need for 
> encryption or security, additionally,  ACL is not only for security, it 
> could be used for routing, QoS ..etc, so the host will not always has the 
> motivation to manipulate the location field.
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> “Why can’t you simply implement rules related to geo-locations statically 
> on the network device (router, firewall .. etc)?”
>
> Response: To enforce new geo-location policies automatically, let’s assume 
> that a mobile router (like a mobile BTS in a GSM network) moved from 
> city-x to city-y, and according to city-x regulations VoIP calls over GSM 
> network is allowed, but city-y regulations do not allow that. Now the 
> topology may reflect same network metrics in both cities but there is no 
> rule that triggers configuration change based on geo-location.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> Author/Contact Information:
>
>    Ammar J. Salih
>    Baghdad, Iraq
>
>    Phone: [phone]
>    Email: [e-mail]
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially.
>    - Marshall McLuhan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv